Juckel: MS Vat Syr. 268

HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES

Vol. 1, No. 1
January 1998

—————————
Issue Index
—————————
Home
Volume Index
Editorial Board
Copyright & Citing
Submission
Transliteration
Links
—————————
SyrCOM

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development of the Harklean Margin

Andreas JUCKEL
juckel@uni-muenster.de
Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung
University of Münster

Introduction

The Harklean Apparatus

The Revisional Development towards the Byzantine Text

Limitations

List of Readings

Summary

Introduction †

[1] When R. Köbert in 1975 published his short article 1 on Ms Vat. syr. 268, his primary concern was to provide scholars with a guide to this manuscript by giving an analysis of its content folio-by-folio. This was made necessary due to a careless (re)binding of the manuscript (before pagination) which put the folios into disorder. The background of Köbert's article was his co-operation with the International Greek New Testament Project (Luke vol. I 1984, vol. II 1987). Supplying the editor(s) with the readings of the Harklean version, he relied not only on the editio princeps of J. White 2 (Gospels 1778), but also on Vat. syr. 267 and 268 of the 8^th/9^th century. No doubt he was right in using manuscripts dating from the first millennium for quoting the Harklean evidence. But he certainly did not use the Vatican manuscripts simply to confirm White's text (founded principally on a single late manuscript, i.e. New College 333, Oxford) by tracing its readings back to the first millennium. Many of the divergent Vatican readings can easily put into question the originality of White's text by their age and common agreement against it. Obviously Köbert's intention was to enlarge the horizon of the Harklean evidence and to escape from the idiosyncrasies of a single manuscript, i.e. White's edition. We are not told if Köbert realized the revisional development within the Harklean tradition which is the clue to understand the variations of the Harklean text and margin. In any case he was the first to introduce Harklean readings taken from early Harklean manuscripts into a scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament, thus opposing--intentionally or not--the unprooved assumption that White's text is a reliable source for the original Harklean 3.

[2] The general purpose of the present article is to continue Köbert's effort to promote our knowledge of the early Harklean text and to move towards a critical edition of the Harklean Gospels based on the manuscripts of the first millennium 4. The special purpose of this article, however, is to prove the importance of Vat. syr. 268 in establishing the original text and for gaining an understanding of the text's early revisional development. It will also give an idea about the reason why this manuscript was chosen to be published in the Comparative Edition of George A. Kiraz 5.It is confined to the study of the Harklean margin which is the characteristic feature of this version and especially suitable for tracing revisional development. For convenience the readings of the textline and the margin are presented in Greek, the Syriac form can easily be traced in the Comparative Edition vol. I (p. lii - lxxxii the marginal readings).

The Harklean Apparatus

[3] The Harklean Tetraevangelium is a literal translation of a Greek model prepared in 615/16 by Thomas of Harqel (Heraklea in the Euphratensis), bishop of Mabbug, when he was in exile near Alexandria. From the general subscription to the Gospels we learn that Thomas actually proceeded by revising the Philoxenian version of 507/08 with the help of two or three Greek manuscripts representing the graeca veritas for him. The procedure resulted in a scholarly edition including an apparatus 6 with variant readings of the Greek and Syriac tradition (the former translated into Syriac) in the margin, and critically (with asterisks and obeli) marked words and passages in the text. Numerous Greek words in the margin are quoted to give the exact Greek background of single words or expressions in the Harklean text; they are not variant readings opposed to the Harklean textline. The purpose of the apparatus was to include textual material current in Thomas' time to serve scholarly discussion, thus `translating' the essential Greek textual tradition, not just a single manuscript as happened in the time of Philoxenus.

[4] This apparatus is the characteristic feature of the Harklean; nevertheless, in most of the manuscripts it is omitted by the scribes. From the first millennium there are only four principal manuscripts attesting the Harklean apparatus: Mss Vat. syr. 267 (ca. 8^th c.) and 268 (ca. 8^th/9^th c.), Ms Mingana syr. 124 (Mingana: 'about A.D. 730') all of them with defects of their own, and Ms syr. 703 of the Chester Beatty Library (Dublin) which is from the beginning of the second millennium (1177 A.D.) but may be added here, because it was copied from a model dated 841 A.D 7. Two more manuscripts (Ms British Library Add. 7163, ca. 9^th/10^th century; Ms Harvard syr. 16, ca. 8^th/9^th century) are fragmentary.Poor attestation of the Harklean apparatus, mutilation, susceptibility to incorrect copying due to its complexity, and finally revisional alteration are severe obstacles to reaching its original form. To enlarge the attestation by turning to manuscripts of the second millennium (the principal manuscript is New Coll. 333 edited by J. White) would not be a reliable contribution to our knowledge of the original apparatus. At the beginning of the second millennium revisional development of the Harklean was reinforced by Dionysius Bar Salibi (+ 1171), bishop of Amid (Diyarbakir), who reorganized the apparatus considerably and influenced the Harklean tradition of the times to follow. Therefore it is a matter of method to confine research on the original Harklean apparatus to manuscripts of the first millennium.

The Revisional Development Towards the Byzantine Text

[5] The revisional alteration we meet in the four manuscripts of the first millennium is indicated 1) by the fact that there is an exchange of reading between textline and margin, i.e. what is in the textline of one manuscript is in the margin of the other, and vice versa; 2) by the different use of the critical signs (asterisks and obeli); 3) by numerous variant readings of the textline due to variants known from the Greek tradition, or giving a different rendering of the homogeneous Greek text. We cannot believe the scribes to be capable of these alterations which were made after renewed consultation of the Greek text; and so we have to ascribe them rather to malphone who were concerned with the correctness and reliability of the Harklean text and were familiar with Greek. In the four manuscripts used for this article we basically find the same text and margin, slightly but significantly altered. Compared with the thorough revision undertaken by Dionysius Bar Salibi, not the whole is shifted but only parts of it. This is important for claiming that the common textual substance of our four manuscripts depends on the original Harklean and that the revisional development gradually grew out of the tradition itself, and was not imposed by a single individual 8.

[6] In CESG vol I p. xxxvii the revisional development of the Harklean is said to be generally connected with the development of the Greek text towards the uniform and then dominant Byzantine text (majority text). This is especially true with regard to the revisional alteration of the apparatus in the early Harklean manuscripts. For a great number of these alterations are promoting the Byzantine text by removing the non-Byzantine reading of the textline to the margin or even by eliminating it. The importance of Ms Vat. syr. 268 for our knowledge of the early revisional development is the fact that it maintains many non-Byzantine readings which the other three manuscripts revise in favour of the Byzantine text. To demonstrate the shifting of the early Harklean text towards the Byzantine text some lists of readings are given below. The conclusion that will be drawn from them is that Ms Vat. syr. 268 does in fact represent an earlier stage of revision than the other three manuscripts used in this article and a critical edition of the Harklean Gospels should principally rely on this manuscript.

Limitations

[7] a) The first limitation is the choice of the four manuscripts mentioned before. They are in fact the principal ones 9 of the first millennium representing the Harklean apparatus. The defect of Ms Vat. syr. 268 is the damage of its text and margin especially in St. John's Gospel. But even when the marginal reading is lost, the fact of its existence is recorded by the word in the textline which preserves the graphic sign referring to the margin 10.This is also true for Ms Mingana syr. 124, most of whose marginalia must be inferred from the reference in the textline and from the intact margin of the other three manuscripts. To improve the reliability, Ms Plut. I.40 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana was used to confirm the non-Byzantine textline reading of the Vatican manuscript. This manuscript (no apparatus, dated 756 A.D. and certainly older than Ms Vat. syr. 268) is in agreement with Ms Vat. syr. 268 in the lists A and B below, but according to list C it is affected by revisional alteration.

[8] b) All evidence presented in the lists below is taken from the Harklean margin of Luke. In this Gospel, which is the longest one, we find the most extensive apparatus, and here the damage of the manuscripts just mentioned hardly affects the evidence. It was in the apparatus where Thomas of Harqel quoted or marked variant readings of the Greek and Syriac tradition known to him. Again it is the apparatus where the revisors of the Harklean are quoting or marking non-Byzantine readings formerly belonging to the Harklean textline itself, thus correcting the Harklean. This shifting purpose of the apparatus, from quoting to correcting, can be traced best with the marginal readings, but not with the words put with critical signs in the text. The asterisks and obeli are rather inconsistently transmitted in the manuscripts, and thus have textcritical problems of their own 11. So this (admittedly essential) part of the Harklean apparatus is neglected in the present article. But for the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to confine all evidence presented in the lists below to the marginal readings and to the word(s) in the textline referring to the margin. The purpose of list A is to show that the original Harklean Gospels were principally founded upon the (early) Byzantine text. List B will give the divided attestation of the margin of Ms Vat. syr. 268, i.e. the revisional alteration of the Harklean margin. List C gives non-Byzantine readings of the textline in Ms Vat. syr. 268 which were removed to the margin of the three other manuscripts by the activity of revisors, i.e. the revisional alteration of the text.

Lists of Readings

List A

[9] Lis A aims to show that the original Harklean Gospel text depends on an early version of the Byzantine text. This recension of the Greek text can be traced back to the fourth century and is the dominant and then uniform text 12 of the Byzantine Empire, approved by ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Its earlier version was less uniform than in later times, and the variety of the earlier version is present in the Harklean manuscripts in a number of 'old' readings which were later regarded as non-Byzantine and sufficient enough by number to provoke their revisional elimination. The Greek manuscripts chosen by Thomas might have belonged to the 5^th/6^th century. His intention obviously was to bring the Philoxenian in line with the generally accepted Greek text, quoting its variety in the margin. We can imagine him proceeding by relying principally on a 'normal good' Greek manuscript, compiling the apparatus out of variant readings taken from one or two additional manuscripts (and the Philoxenian?). It is unlikely that Thomas' intention was to promote or reject special selected readings. He was a translator (revisor) rather than a critic. What today seems to be the fruit of his textcritical judgement is probably due to the limitation of the material he was relying on. The basic foundation of the original Harklean Gospels on the Byzantine text is not a surprising fact, for it was the text of dominant influence and regarded as superior in style and `correctness' to all remnants of texts prior to or contemporary with the Byzantine. Only a revision of the Philoxenian according to this text could really serve scholarly and dogmatic discussion 13 for centuries, being the final revision of the Syriac New Testament not only for the extent of its `mirroring' the Greek model, but also for being founded upon the text of the future. Due to the gradual advance of the Greek text behind the Harklean Gospels towards uniformity the need for control, comments and revision is evident. Only by revisional dependence on the shifting Greek text could Thomas' intention be maintained: to keep the Syriac New Testament in line with the current Greek text. Only this allowed the Harklean to remain a useful instrument for scholarly research.

[10] In this first list the four manuscripts used in this article have the same (Byzantine) reading in the textline, and there are no differences in the margin. Since the following readings are all present in the Nestle-Aland²⁷ edition, their Greek support for the text and the margin is not listed here. The Harklean text and margin of this list is in agreement with White's edition. As the Greek background is concerned, all readings are given in Greek, the original Syriac text (and the marginal readings) can be looked up in CESG vol. I p. lxvi - lxxvi.

· 2,9 Hk^txt kuriou, Hk^mg qeou - 2,33 Hk^txt o Iwshf, Hk^mg o pathr autou - 5,29 Hk^txt met autwn, Hk^mg met autou - 6,1 Hk^txt en sabbatw deuteroprwtw, Hk^mg OM. deuteroprwtw - 6,9 Hk^txt apokteinai, Hk^mg apolesai - 6,10 Hk^txt epoihsen, Hk^mg exeteinen - 7,1 Hk^txt epeidh eplhrwsen ... eishlqen, Hk^mg kai egeneto ote etelesen ... hlqen - 8,26 Hk^txt Gadarhnwn, Hk^mg Gerashnwn - 8,27 Hk^txt ek cronwn ikanwn kai, Hk^mg kai cronw ikanw - 9,35 Hk^txt agaphtoV, Hk^mg eklelegmenoV - 9,49 Hk^txt epistata, Hk^mg didaskale - 10,19 Hk^txt didwmi, Hk^mg dedwka - 10,39 Hk^txt Ihsou, Hk^mg kuriou - 10,41/42 Hk^txt merimnaV ... enoV de estin creia, Hk^mg merimnaV ... oligwn de estin creia h enoV - 17,23 Hk^txt mh apelqhte mhde diwxhte, Hk^mg mh pisteushte - 18,28 Hk^txt afhkamen panta kai, Hk^mg afenteV ta idia - 20,33 Hk^txt en th oun anastasei, Hk^mg h gunh oun en th anastasei - 20,34 Hk^txt SINE ADD. before gamousin, Hk^mg ADD. gennwntai kai gennwsin before gamousin - 20,36 Hk^txt dunantai, Hk^mg mellousin - 21,30 Hk^txt hdh, bleponteV af eautwn, Hk^mg ton karpon autwn - 22,16 Hk^txt ex autou, Hk^mg auto - 23,33 Hk^txt aphlqon, Hk^mg hlqon - 23,45 Hk^txt kai eskotisqh o hlioV, Hk^mg tou hliou eklipontoV.

· The opposite case that the Byzantine text is in the Harklean margin we find in 3,8 Hk^txt karpon axion, Hk^mg karpouV axiouV - 23,34 Hk^txt klhrouV, Hk^mg klhron.

List B

[11] Lis B presents the divided attestation of the margin in the manuscripts (with identical textline throughout) and gives an impression of the difficulty in reconstructing the original margin. To ascribe the omission of marginalia generally to negligent scribes is not tenable: too many of them are omitted which is in contrast to the carefully written codices and to their actual proper attachment to the textline. And the possibility of accidental omission is reduced to the minimum by the way of attaching the whole apparatus: it probably was attached to the main text by a separate procedure, thus the marginalia were protected to a large extent from being dropped. But even if one prefers to blame the scribes for omitting the marginalia, the fuller margin of Ms Vat. syr. 268 would speak in favour of its priority 14.

[12] A better understanding of the omissions comes from ascribing them to revisional activity. As long as the (non-Byzantine) marginalia could be identified within the Greek tradition availiable to the revisor(s) it was justified to maintain them. If identification was not possible (for whatever reason) they could easily be regarded as out of use and not serving their original purpose any more. Accordingly, it seemed appropriate to omit them. The renewed consultation of Greek manuscripts by the revisor(s) to check the marginalia is beyond our control. Since some of the non-Byzantine marginal readings of list B have only small support among the extant Greek witnesses, the reviser(s) might well not have come across them.

[13] In this list the four manuscripts used for this article again have the same Byzantine reading in the textline. The non-Byzantine reading of V268 is in the margin, but omitted at least by one of the manuscripts. The Florentine manuscript (no apparatus) is confirming the textline throughout. V267, V268 = Ms Vat. syr 267, 268; M = Ms Mingana syr. 124; D = Ms Chester Beatty 703; F = Ms Plut. I.40, Florenz.

· 1,63 (IGNTP) Hk^txt IwannhV estin (to) onoma autou, Hk^mg estai (not in D) - 1,78 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt epeskeyato, Hk^mg episkeyetai (not in D) - 2,21 (IGNTP) Hk^txt hmerai, Hk^mg ADD. ai (not in MD) - 2,27 (IGNTP) Hk^txt eisagagein, Hk^mg eisagein (not in V267 D) - 2,43 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt egnw Iwshf kai h mhthr, Hk^mg egnwsan oi goneiV (not in M) - 5,7 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt wste buqizesqai auta, Hk^mg ADD. para ti after wste (not in D) - 5,10 (see IGNTP) Hk^txt tw Simwni, Hk^mg tou Simwnou (not in MD) - 5,21 (IGNTP) Hk^txt monoV, Hk^mg enoV (not in D) - 6,48 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt teqemeliwto gar epi thn petran, Hk^mg dia to kalwV oikodomhsqai authn (not in M) - 8,37 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt Gadarhnwn, Hk^mg Gerashnwn (not in V267 MD) - 8,38 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt apelusen, Hk^mg apesteilen (not in MD) - 8,41 (IGNTP) Hk^txt eiselqein, Hk^mg ina eiselqh (not in V267 M D) - 10,39 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt tou Ihsou, Hk^mg tou kuriou (not in D) - 11,13 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt agion, Hk^mg agaqon (not in D) - 12,1 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt en oiV episunacqeiswn ... wste katapatein allhlouV, Hk^mg pollwn de oclwn sumperiecontwn kuklw (not in V267 D) - 13,3 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt wsautwV, Hk^mg omoiwV (not in V267 D) - 13,15 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt upokritai, Hk^mg upokrita (not in V267 M D) - 13,31 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt hmera, Hk^mg wra (not in M) - 14,24 (IGNTP) Hk^txt tou deipnou, Hk^mg ton deipnon (not in D) - 16,3 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt OM. kai before epaitein, Hk^mg ADD. kai before epaitein (not in V267) - 19,8 (IGNTP) Hk^txt kurion, Hk^mg Ihsoun (not in D) - 20,13 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt ADD. idonteV after touton, OM. idonteV after touton (not in D) - 20,14 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt eautouV, Hk^mg allhlouV (not in V267 D) - 22,34 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt prin h, Hk^mg ewV (not in M) - 22,36 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt eipen oun, Hk^mg o de eipen (not in M) - 22,37 Hk^txt ta peri emou, Hk^mg to peri emou (not in D). - 22,49 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt esomenon, Hk^mg genomenon (not in M) - 22,66 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt anhgagon, Hk^mg aphgagon (not in D) - 23,11 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt OM. kai before o HrwdhV, Hk^mg ADD. kai before o HrwdhV (not in M D) - 23,12 (IGNTP) Hk^txt hmera, Hk^mg wra (not in M).

· Again the opposite case that the Byzantine reading is in the Harklean margin we find only in 2,17 (IGNTP) Hk^txt egnwrisan, Hk^mg diegnwrisan (not in M) - 4,44 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt ... thV IoudaiaV, Hk^mg ... thV GalilaiaV (not in D) - 6,7 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt eurwsin kathgorein, Hk^mg eurwsin kathgorian (not in M) - 11,3 (vSod) Hk^txt shmeron, Hk^mg to kaq hmeran (not in D) - 14,22 (IGNTP) Hk^txt gegonen wV, Hk^mg gegonen o (not in M D) - 21,2 (IGNTP) Hk^txt balousan, Hk^mg ballousan (not in D).

· Some marginal readings are also unhomogeneously attested by the Harklean manuscripts, but their Greek background cannot be traced with the help of the current Greek editions: 1,38 (ha) ena (ammta), not in M; 2,32 l-bussama, not in D; 2,48 b-kiba, not in M D; 2,52 w-talya, not in M; 3,14 w-palhay estratiya, not in M; 4,11 dra^ce attached to the text reading idaya (omitted in CESG), not in D; 5,1 ^camma, not in D; 8,19 l-mepga^c, not in D.

List C

[14] List C presents the revisional alteration of the non-Byzantine textline in Ms V268 (no margin is attached throughout). The other three manuscripts omit its reading or put it in the margin. All these alterations are corrections of the textline in V268 according to the Byzantine text, and the additional marginalia are due to the revisor(s), not to Thomas. It seems to be quite obvious that here V268 represents an earlier stage of the Harklean text than the other three (four) manuscripts. What is most striking is the fact that V268 alone preserves these readings, and even the Florentine manuscript (one of the oldest at all, A.D. 756), gives the revised reading in the textline. But the generally poor attestation of the Harklean margin in only a few manuscripts of the first millennium tells us to be careful. The same are pointing to the few non-Byzantine readings which remained unrevised in all Harklean manuscripts used for this article. Some of them were removed to the margin only in later times, as we can learn from Ms New Coll. 333 (White' edition) (samples see below). And even some Byzantine readings are removed to the margin by the reviser(s) (see below). Both phenomena can be explained by the unhomogeneity of the Byzantine text the reviser(s) had at hand.

[15] Readings of V268 are removed from the text to the margin in V267, D or M (the underlined readings are in opposition to the quotation of White's text and margin in NA²⁷/Syn, they are good samples for the need to revise the Harklean quotations in the scholarly Greek editions of the New Testament):

· 1,29 (NA²⁷) V268^txt en eauth legousa (hay bah kad amra) M D put in the margin, V267 eliminates without margin, F is omitting. The omission is the Byzantine reading.

1,66 (NA²⁷) V268^txt gar (ger) V267 M put in the margin, D omits ger without margin. The omission of ger is the Byzantine reading.

3,16 (NA²⁷) V268^txt eiV metanoian (la-tyabuta) V267 D have in the margin, not in the text, F is omitting (M is supplemented here). The omission is the Byzantine reading.

4,9 (in no edition) V268^txt w-aytyeh den, M removes den to the margin, V267 D remove it from the text without margin, F is omitting den. The Byzantine text here is kai hgagen, the non-Byzantine text reads hgagen de. Removing den from the textline means to follow the Byzantine text. The reading of V268^txt V267^txt with w- and den is unusual and not attested in Greek.

5,34 (NA²⁷) V268^txt IhsoV (Isho^c) is not the textline of V267 D and F, and only V267 has it in the margin (again M is supplemented here). The omission is the Byzantine reading.

7,12 (in no edition) V268^txt (w-hay) iteh (h)wat armalta (kai auth hn chra). V267 M D F remove iteh (h)wat from the text, V267 M D put it in the margin, probably because the Byzantine text leaves it out (kai auth chra).

8,10 (IGNTP) V268^txt eipen autoiV (emar l-hon). V267 M D omit autoiV (l-hon) and put it in the margin. F without l-hon. The omission belongs to the Byzantine text.

10,17 (NA²⁷) V268^txt ebdomhkonta duo (shab^cin wa-tren). V267 M D remove duo (wa-tren) to the margin, F without wa-tren. Their textline is the Byzantine reading.

12,58 (in no edition) the second b^cal dina (antidikoV) of V268^txt is in the margin of V267 M D (and omitted in the text of F), probably because the 'normal' Greek text does not attest this second antidikoV.

14,15 (NA²⁷) V268^txt ostiV (haw nash). V267 M D^corr remove nash from the text to the margin. F without nash. Their textline reads oV (haw), which is the Byzantine reading.

17,1 (NA²⁷) V268^txt plhn ouai de (bram way den). V267 M D remove bram from the text to the margin. F without bram. Their textline now is way den, which is the Byzantine reading.

18,41 (IGNTP) V268^txt eipen autw (emar leh). V267 M D omit autw (leh), only V267 puts it in the margin. F without leh. The omission is the Byzantine text.

20,24 (NA²⁷) V268^txt V267^txt D^txt oi de apokriqenteV de (henon kad panniw de). M puts oi (henon) in the margin, its textline now is kad panniw den (apokriqenteV de), the Byzantine reading. F without henon.

21,9 (IGNTP) V268^txt ADD. h akoaV polemwn (aw shem^ce da-qrabe) after polemouV (qrabe) V267 M D (F is omitting) have it in the margin. The text without addition is the Byzantine one.

21,11 (NA²⁷) V268^txt ADD. kai ceimwneV after estai, V267 M put it in the margin, F is omitting. D has no margin, but its textline is kai ceimwneV megaloi esontai (w-satwe rawrabe nehwun), not attested in Greek. The Byzantine text has no addition.

· There are few Byzantine readings in the textline of V268 which are removed to the margin in V267, D or M:

7,39 (Syn) V268^txt M^txt kad emar (legwn), this is the Byzantine text. V267 D F remove kad emar from the textline, only V267 puts it in the margin.

9,54(see IGNTP) V268^txt 267^txt M^txt F^txt marya (kurie), this is the Byzantine text. D removes it from the text to the margin.

12,10 (see IGNTP) V268^txt M^txt D^txt F^txt neshtbeq leh (afeqhsetai autw), this is the Byzantine text. V267 puts autw (leh) in the margin.

· In all Harklean manuscripts (including F) used for this article non-Byzantine readings remained in the textline, which later were removed to the margin or were omitted without being put in the margin, e.g. in Ms New Coll. 333 (ed. by J. White = NC333). Three samples are:

1,41 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt ADD. en agalliasei (ba-rwaza) after to brefoV, NC333 removes it to the margin to follow the 'normal' (Byzantine) text.

2,25 (NA²⁷) Hk^txt kai eusebhV (w-shappir dehlta), Hk^mg kai eulabhV (w-nakpa). NC333 vice versa.

12,1 (see IGNTP) Hk^txt ADD. twn farisaiwn (da-prishe) after upokrisiV (massab appe). As da-prise is not attested in Greek, V267 M D put it sub asterisco, NC333 removes it from the text without preserving it in the margin.

[16] Beside these marginalia due to revision V267, M and D have no additional readings in the margin which are not attested by V268. But on the contrary it is V268 which presents some marginalia not to be found in the other three manuscripts (see note 14). The poor attestation of the Harklean apparatus in general will prevent us from over-esteeming this surplus, but the view that V268 is at an earlier stage of revision than V267, M and D (and F) can hardly be wrong. The revisional development is moving from V268 to the other three manuscripts, not the contrary.

Summary

[17] The Harklean Tetraevangelium is principally founded upon the Byzantine text, but Ms Vat. syr 268 has maintained a larger number of non-Byzantine readings in text and margin than the other three manuscripts. The differences between V268 and the other three can be explained by revisional development to bring the Harklean text of V268 into better line with the Byzantine text. On the one hand this development results in omitting marginalia which cannot be identified within the 'normal' Greek text; on the other hand, this development results in adding new marginalia by removing the reading of the textline. The conclusion drawn from the evidence presented in this article is that text and margin of V268 are prior to the ones of V267, M and D, and that the oldest Harklean text of the Gospels we can reach today is that of V268. Both the number of its non-Byzantine text readings and of the marginal notes in general is larger than in any other Harklean manuscript of the first millennium. A critical edition of the Harklean Tetraevengelium should give priority to this manuscript as long as no less revised manuscripts of the first millennium are known. But keeping the limitations of this article in mind, research on the critical signs (asterisks and obeli) and on translation technique must re-examine and complete the results presented here.